Abstract

This legal writing is entitled about THE CONSIDERATIONS OF JUDGE BY APPLYING LEGAL SANCTIONS AGAINST COUNTERFEITING ACTORS DOCUMENTS RELATING OF THE LAND (THE STUDY OF DECISION CASE NUMBER 106/Pid.B/2012/PN.SLEMAN). The forgery related of the land documents is a deceptive act by the way of falsifying a letter giving rise to a right, engagement or debt relief or as evidence of something with the intent to use or get others to use the letter as if it is true or not. The purpose of this act is to deceive others and make a profit for themselves. The purpose of this legal writing is order to determine what the basic consideration of judges in applying legal sanctions against people who falsify documents to broaden the ground and readers knows as well as explain any constraints faced by the judge in imposing the sanctions of law. This research is done directly to the informant as a main data. The implementation of this form is to submit questionnaires and interviews to the informant. In addition, this research was also conducted with respondents do indirectly. The implementation of this form is to summarize the statements contained in the decision of the district court and identified that in addition to reviewing the legal materials as the secondary data. Based on research materials that has been done, the average excuse someone to have forged documents of land is due to the high demands of the economy that needs to be filled with luxury living at the same time. Futhermore, the judge which provided the considerations in this documents forgery case was based from the facts revealed in the court of law, namely throught the testimony whom given by the witnesses, the testimony of the defendant and evidence submitted by the prosecutor. In addition, the considerations of judge in this decision was also based from the consideration of the judge’s juridical which reference to Article 263 paragraph (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code about the act of forgery and additional some article related to the occurrence beginning of the counterfeiter’s crime (Article 55 paragraph (1) to 1 of the Criminal Code about the criminal acts was committed by participating) as it is made by the prosecutor in the indictment. In this decision, the Judge was not cross-checking, was not seeing and was not understanding the indictment and the warrant made by the public prosecutor, so that this decision was unfair.